Influence of minimum quantity lubrication in the surface quality of milled maraging steel

  • Ítalo V. TomazEmail author
  • Juan Manuel Pardal
  • Maria Cindra Fonseca


The use of large amount of cutting fluid in machining process represents a great environmental and economic issue. Minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) seems to be a feasible alternative to flood application as it reduces drastically the volume cutting fluid used in machining process. This paper investigated the relationship between cutting parameters and machined surface quality in the end milling of maraging 300 steel when flood and MQL methods were used. A full factorial design setting feed per tooth, cutting speed cutting depth, and fluid application technique was performed. Then, the effects of these parameters on machining forces, surface roughness, and residual stresses were studied by analysis of variance (ANOVA). The analysis of variance showed that the most important milling parameter regarding results of both surface roughness and residual stresses was the feed per tooth. Minimum quantity lubrication system was able to reduce machining forces for most of tested conditions, and surface roughness (Ra) was reduce in approximately 10%. Residual stress results showed that MQL is able to produce better results than flood method when low feed rate is used. It was found that the use of MQL technique is advantageous in the milling of maraging steel.


Machining parameters Residual stress Surface finishing Maraging 300 steel 


Funding information

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior -Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001. The authors would also like to thank the Brazilian research agencies CNPq, CAPES, and FAPERJ, for the financial support.


  1. 1.
    kosaraju S, Chandraker S (2015) Taguchi analysis on cutting force and surface roughness in turning MDN350 steel. Mater Today Proc 2:3388–3393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tavares SSM, Pardal JM, Martins TR de B et al (2017) Influence of austenitizing on the mechanical properties of maraging 300 and Sae 4340 steels - comparative study. Mater Res 20:39–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    García Navas V, Gonzalo O, Bengoetxea I (2012) Effect of cutting parameters in the surface residual stresses generated by turning in AISI 4340 steel. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 61:48–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Asiltürk İ, Çunkaş M (2011) Modeling and prediction of surface roughness in turning operations using artificial neural network and multiple regression method. Expert Syst Appl 38:5826–5832. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Withers PJ, Bhadeshia HKDH (2001) Residual stress. Part 1 – measurement techniques. Mater Sci Technol 17:355–365. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coto B, Navas VG, Gonzalo O, Aranzabe A, Sanz C (2011) Influences of turning parameters in surface residual stresses in AISI 4340 steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 53:911–919. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gunnberg F, Escursell M, Jacobson M (2006) The influence of cutting parameters on residual stresses and surface topography during hard turning of 18MnCr5 case carburised steel. J Mater Process Technol 174:82–90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mohammadpour M, Razfar MR, Jalili Saffar R (2010) Numerical investigating the effect of machining parameters on residual stresses in orthogonal cutting. Simul Model Pract Theory 18:378–389. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Özel T, Ulutan D (2012) Prediction of machining induced residual stresses in turning of titanium and nickel based alloys with experiments and finite element simulations. CIRP Ann 61:547–550. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saini S, Ahuja IS, Sharma VS (2013) Modelling the effects of cutting parameters on residual stresses in hard turning of AISI H11 tool steel. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 65:667–678. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang K, Yang W (2016) Analytical modeling of residual stress formation in workpiece material due to cutting. Int J Mech Sci 114:21–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ma Y, Feng P, Zhang J, Wu Z, Yu D (2016) Prediction of surface residual stress after end milling based on cutting force and temperature. J Mater Process Technol 235:41–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lalwani DI, Mehta NK, Jain PK (2008) Experimental investigations of cutting parameters influence on cutting forces and surface roughness in finish hard turning of MDN250 steel. J Mater Process Technol 206:167–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stachurski W, Sawicki J, Wójcik R, Nadolny K (2018) Influence of application of hybrid MQL-CCA method of applying coolant during hob cutter sharpening on cutting blade surface condition. J Clean Prod 171:892–910. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Benedicto E, Carou D, Rubio EM (2017) Technical, economic and environmental review of the lubrication/cooling systems used in machining processes. Procedia Eng 184:99–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sharma VS, Singh G, Sørby K (2015) A review on minimum quantity lubrication for machining processes. Mater Manuf Process 30:935–953. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Erhan SZ, Sharma BK, Liu Z, Adhvaryu A (2008) Lubricant base stock potential of chemically modified vegetable oils. J Agric Food Chem 56:8919–8925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mia M, Gupta MK, Lozano JA, Carou D, Pimenov DY, Królczyk G, Khan AM, Dhar NR (2019) Multi-objective optimization and life cycle assessment of eco-friendly cryogenic N2 assisted turning of Ti-6Al-4V. J Clean Prod 210:121–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pusavec F, Kramar D, Krajnik P, Kopac J (2010) Transitioning to sustainable production – part II: evaluation of sustainable machining technologies. J Clean Prod 18:1211–1221. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krolczyk GM, Maruda RW, Krolczyk JB, Wojciechowski S, Mia M, Nieslony P, Budzik G (2019) Ecological trends in machining as a key factor in sustainable production – a review. J Clean Prod 218:601–615. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ribeiro Filho SLM, Vieira JT, de Oliveira JA, Arruda ÉM, Brandão LC (2017) Comparison among different vegetable fluids used in minimum quantity lubrication systems in the tapping process of cast aluminum alloy. J Clean Prod 140:1255–1262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    NareshBabu M, Anandan V, Muthukrishnan N, Santhanakumar M (2019) End milling of AISI 304 steel using minimum quantity lubrication. Measurement 138:681–689. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tai BL, Stephenson DA, Furness RJ, Shih AJ (2014) Minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) in automotive powertrain machining. Procedia CIRP 14:523–528. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vazquez E, Gomar J, Ciurana J, Rodríguez CA (2015) Analyzing effects of cooling and lubrication conditions in micromilling of Ti6Al4V. J Clean Prod 87:906–913. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu Z, Xu J, Han S, Chen M (2013) A coupling method of response surfaces (CRSM) for cutting parameters optimization in machining titanium alloy under minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) condition. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 14:693–702. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maruda RW, Krolczyk GM, Michalski M, Nieslony P, Wojciechowski S (2017) Structural and microhardness changes after turning of the AISI 1045 steel for minimum quantity cooling lubrication. J Mater Eng Perform 26:431–438. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dhar NR, Kamruzzaman M, Ahmed M (2006) Effect of minimum quantity lubrication (MQL) on tool wear and surface roughness in turning AISI-4340 steel. J Mater Process Technol 172:299–304. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hassanpour H, Sadeghi MH, Rasti A, Shajari S (2016) Investigation of surface roughness, microhardness and white layer thickness in hard milling of AISI 4340 using minimum quantity lubrication. J Clean Prod 120:124–134. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    de Paula Oliveira G, Cindra Fonseca M, Araujo AC (2017) Analysis of residual stress and cutting force in end milling of Inconel 718 using conventional flood cooling and minimum quantity lubrication. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 92:3265–3272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rubeo MA, Schmitz TL (2016) Milling force modeling: a comparison of two approaches. Procedia Manuf 5:90–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Abukhshim NA, Mativenga PT, Sheikh MA (2006) Heat generation and temperature prediction in metal cutting: a review and implications for high speed machining. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 46:782–800. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    da Silva MB, Wallbank J (1999) Surface finish and lubrication at low cutting speeds. Mater Sci Technol 15:221–225. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kiswanto G, Zariatin DL, Ko TJ (2014) The effect of spindle speed, feed-rate and machining time to the surface roughness and burr formation of aluminum alloy 1100 in micro-milling operation. J Manuf Process 16:435–450. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Debnath S, Reddy MM, Yi QS (2014) Environmental friendly cutting fluids and cooling techniques in machining: a review. J Clean Prod 83:33–47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica/ PGMECUniversidade Federal FluminenseNiteróiBrazil
  2. 2.Laboratório de Ensaios dos Materiais (LEMat)Instituto Federal FluminenseCabo FrioBrazil

Personalised recommendations